There's been a lot more cross-blog talk on this - but for me what has contributed the most to the conversation -

This post from William at Integral Options Cafe, does a good job of highlighting the essential points, in my view.

He also goes to the evidence about the version of "integral" we are talking about, in this case, - which is Wilber's, and highlights one of Wilber's distinctions between liberal and conservative -

Well, if you ask the simple question-- Why do human beings suffer? --you will get two different, basic answers. The conservatives will say, You suffer because of yourself ; the liberals will say, You suffer because of someone else.

So, if this is taken as the distinction between liberal and conservative, then integral really, is neither. 

I also like the Perez quote that William highlights, as a caution to conflating integral and conservative. 

Joe Perez also takes issue with my equating "Apollonian" and Integralism:

When Wilber's spiritual writings on nondual mysticism are given their due, and his emphasis on the vitality of including Descending as well as Ascending currents is weighed in, it seems clear to me that Wilber's philosophy (yes) includes and transcends both Apollo and Dionysus.

That is a very valid point.  Possibly we are running into the human-ness of the philosopher himself here, in terms of a practice of a "Dionysian" integralism.  (Someone creating the maps and models, and integrating everything into an overarching framework, isn't really in a Dionysian practice - and this is how it should be.)
Since we haven't seen it, this doesn't mean the possibilities aren't wide open for it.

Also, if I came across as saying that there is a one to one correspondence between Apollonian and conservative, liberal and Dionysian, I'm not sure this is the case.  The only point I was making is that Wilber integral looks very Apollonian to me, and that it isn't a big jump for a conservative mindset to embrace an Apollonian view.  But then again, it may not take a big jump for a liberal mindset to embrace an Apollonian view either.

Lastly, I agree with what Tuff Ghost says here -

Other than that, I think the other terms are a bit too muddied at this point for me to say anything conclusive

At some point - as observed by all participants in this cross-blog conversation - the terms themselves mean different things to different people.  Unless there is agreement on terms, then there will be a lot of speaking past one another. 

So I'll end with William's thought again

I still feel that conservativism is a Blue/Orange values system. Integral certainly has many of the traits that make conservativism useful in the philosophical sense (ignoring, as you say, American politics), but I think that defining Integral as conservative is to elevate first tier memes to second tier status. That was my main disagreement with your post.

I cannot argue against what you say about Integral having a strong streak of conservative values, but I also can't allow that to stand as the defining characteristic of Integral.